feat: add setup contracts to contract consensus test

[francesco-stacks]

Description

Updates the consensus testing infrastructure to support deploying dependency contracts before the main contract under test.

While writing tests for CheckErrorKind, I encountered multiple scenarios requiring pre-deployed contracts (e.g., for the traits ) that the main contract references. Instead of using ConsensusTest for each case, I extended the macros to simplify this setup.

Changes

• Macros: Updated contract_call_consensus_test! and contract_deploy_consensus_test! to accept an optional setup_contracts parameter.
• New Helper: Introduced SetupContract to define these dependencies.
  • By default, setup contracts are deployed in the first epoch of the test using the default Clarity version for that epoch.
  • The deployment epoch and Clarity version can be overridden using with_epoch and with_clarity_version.
• Example: Added static_check_error_bad_trait_implementation to static_analysis_tests.rs demonstrating the use of a
  setup contract for a trait definition.

Will add more tests in future PRs.

Applicable issues

• fixes #

Additional info (benefits, drawbacks, caveats)

Checklist

• Test coverage for new or modified code paths
• Changelog is updated
• Required documentation changes (e.g., docs/rpc/openapi.yaml and rpc-endpoints.md for v2 endpoints, event-dispatcher.md for new events)
• New clarity functions have corresponding PR in clarity-benchmarking repo

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 82.47423% with 17 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 75.63%. Comparing base (62fe5cb) to head (cdfacf2).
⚠️ Report is 14 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
stackslib/src/chainstate/tests/consensus.rs	80.68%	17 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (75.63%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6699      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    79.47%   75.63%   -3.84%     
===========================================
  Files          577      577              
  Lines       357469   357564      +95     
===========================================
- Hits        284089   270460   -13629     
- Misses       73380    87104   +13724     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...slib/src/chainstate/tests/static_analysis_tests.rs	83.33% <100.00%> (-9.49%)	⬇️
stackslib/src/chainstate/tests/consensus.rs	92.21% <80.68%> (-4.09%)	⬇️

... and 245 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 62fe5cb...cdfacf2. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.